[2021] KEELRC 2219 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 2219 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's claim of refusal or neglect by the respondent to pay the decretal sum was not supported by the evidence, as the parties had agreed to payment in batches and the respondent had already commenced payments. The court held that the application for immediate enforcement was premature...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 2219 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Kenya Shipping, Clearing and Warehouses Workers Union; Respondent: Sunripe (1976) Limited; Applicant: Agunda Otieno Caleb and Others
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2324 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Enforcement of Terminal Dues
Outcome
Application dismissed as premature; respondent to continue payments in batches under Labour Officer supervision.
Judges
DO Ogal
Legal Topics
Terminal Benefits, Batch Payments, Execution of Decree, Labour Officer Supervision
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Terminal Benefits Batch Payments Execution of Decree Labour Officer Supervision

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Shipping, Clearing and Warehouses Workers Union

Claimant

Sunripe (1976) Limited

Respondent

Agunda Otieno Caleb and Others

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Enforcement of Terminal Dues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has refused or neglected to pay the decretal sum as ordered by the court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's request for immediate enforcement and adoption of the tabulated schedule of terminal benefits is merited.
  3. 3 Whether the application for execution is premature before the decree is drawn and the sum agreed upon.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim of refusal or neglect by the respondent to pay the decretal sum was not supported by the evidence, as the parties had agreed to payment in batches and the respondent had already commenced payments. The court held that the application for immediate enforcement was premature because the total decretal sum had not been finalized and the decree had not been drawn, as the matter was still under discussion before the Labour Officer. The respondent had provided reasonable justification for the delay, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and expressed willingness to continue payments. The court dismissed the application and directed that...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as premature; respondent to continue payments in batches under Labour Officer supervision.

Orders

  • The application dated 5th October 2020 is dismissed.
  • The respondent shall continue making payments in batches as originally agreed by the parties.